Why?
A century ago the world was divided into a number of different power blocks (we know them as Empires) it didnt lead to peace, it led to War.
Condosleezy Rice: International buffoon
- Thread starter Bang to Rights
- Start date
Why?
A century ago the world was divided into a number of different power blocks (we know them as Empires) it didnt lead to peace, it led to War.
That's a very surprising fact for me to digest.
But even so, it's not exactly doing anything, er, expansionist with it is it now?
And new zealand's armed status in relation to the world?
It goes back to the connection i was raising between leaders and peoples.
The peoples of the world are different nowadays. We have technology amongst other things to help us see our similarities rather than listen only to our leaders touting their pathatic divisive rhetoric.
There are any number of other reasons, but it's too late for me to be using my brain overly. You try and find them, i'm sure you can if you try hard enough.
Hint: i believe at the time of the first world war women were yet to get the vote? If i've got this wrong by a few years, i trust the hint makes my point?
Part of the ANZUS pact with the US and Australia I believe.
I can't keep replying to someone who so blatantly keeps on moving the goalposts of what's being debated. Your chaning comparisons are impossible to keep up with.
Why don't you just show the forum how switzerland and new zealand have an expansionist mindset then? After all, that was the point at the time until you just railroaded it from the sidelines.
Empires need nuclear weapons, and everybody knows new zealand's love of them... and switzerland's...
New Zealand's not immune from nationalism. Obviously they haven't really got anywhere much to expand to or much power to do so but if circumstances were different I doubt they'd act differently from any other nation. It's definitely got a fairly progressive foreign policy in some ways and an admirable attitude towards nuclear weapons but it can still be a fairly violent country - you don't expect the descendants of white British settlers and a Polynesian warrior race to be 100% peace-loving hippies, do you?
New Zealand certainly hasn't been shy about exerting some power over its patch of the Pacific before - it took over Samao after WWI and was pretty ruthless in crushing the pro-independence movement, machine-gunning dozens of protesters in one incident.
Bang to Rights
Well-Known Member
There it is, really.
I think that I’m probably right in saying that the success in the fusion of political/common citizen’s ”typical features and thinking” (as you call it) can be measured in the ability of any government to instruct its citizens through political propaganda and (in the negative sense) misinformation.
Hitler (through Göbbles) succeeded on a grand scale, Stalin did not, and the US government has succeeded on a level that may have outdone the Nazis. I’m speaking now about the NEGATIVE aspect. All 3 of these are Fascist, political leaders. But there exists POSITIVE “fusion of political/common citizen’s typical features and thinking” as well.
The US lost its’ hold on American citizens towards the end of the Vietnam war. They have since regained that hold and it is now today worse than ever.
So I must answer your question honestly: “If we look at bush, do we see typical features and thinking and actions of typical americans?” I think so, yes.
I think there's no real connection between the actions of the leaders and their peoples - I don't think anybody would argue that Pol Pot was the embodiment of the spirit of the Cambodian people, for example.
Political leaders are generally highly skilled manipulators of people. When a nation is troubled, afraid, or vexed - such as Germany after Versailles, Cambodia after the Vietnam War impacted on it, the Yugoslav republics as the country fell apart, etc. etc., the people become easier to manipulate and it becomes easier for a strong leader to tease a people's murderous and nationalistic instincts to the surface.
New Zealand's not immune from nationalism. Obviously they haven't really got anywhere much to expand to or much power to do so but if circumstances were different I doubt they'd act differently from any other nation. It's definitely got a fairly progressive foreign policy in some ways and an admirable attitude towards nuclear weapons but it can still be a fairly violent country - you don't expect the descendants of white British settlers and a Polynesian warrior race to be 100% peace-loving hippies, do you?
Ah dear, here we go again. I wasn't talking about nationalism, i was talking about expansionism which was YOUR topic!
NZ not got anywhere much to expand to... hmm, let me see now, didn't the british get all the way down to australia one time? Didn't they get across rather a big pond and into america? China?
Hardly nearby one would think!
All you're doing mate is going back and forth between theory and hypotheticals. I have quoted two very wealthy nations who have exhibited no expansionist attitudes towards other nations despite having the economical wherewithal to do so. This was in reply to your theory that everyone would do the same if the conditions were the same.
Thought-provoking post mate.
Your answer to my question is my favoured answer, but i have yet to fully satisfy myself of this. I still need to do more thinking, and i've done bloody shedloads over the years already! But i think it's very very key to understanding human nature and actions, and therefore a great tool to swap permanent war for permanent peace. Both are in our psyche, it's just that one has always had the upper hand.
Listen mate, can you do me a favour and stop shifting the goalposts just about every time you reply to my points? I have talked about the connection between the behaviours of leaders and their peoples in 'ostensibly democractic' nations. I said that several times, then felt it no longer to keep on repeating myself, assuming the point had been taken in my contributors to this thread.
Pol pot and cambodia did not represent anything near approaching a democracy. It is not a valid comparison in the context of the debate here.
Not sure I follow you here - have you actually been suggesting that the reason Switzerland and New Zealand aren't as big and powerful as the USA or Russia is because of some special attributes of the Swiss or New Zealand people rather than history and geography?
Hey, Bang to Rights dragged in Hitler and Stalin just before I posted, what's wrong with inviting Pol Pot to the party as well?
Yes, fear lays people open to unreasonable thinking and behaviour. They will accept many things they'd not accept were they living in peace and contentment. This is of course one reason why nation are put against nation, and people put against people by these very political leaders. It keeps us down, and them in power.
However, such things happen within the ranks of the people too. Any situation where you have leaders and non-leaders, you have the opportunities for fear and divide and rule. Offices and businesses can be appalling places to spend time in for example.
But more key to this all is that the leaders of politics, or business, or sport, or local groups, or anywhere humans conglomorate into groups, get the platform to use language. They own the medium. The people are forced into a listening role, while the leaders can do all the manipulating because they have the speaking role.
But in other situations the group leader will not abuse his/her position, and instead use it for positive enhancement of the group. You will know what i mean when i say i do this in my line of work. Or at least, if i'm to be effective, then i have to follow this path.
Pertinent to the thread is will everyone act in the same way if they have the same opportunity. I say no! From experience.
Nope, I keep responding to your points politely pointing out that they're factually inaccurate. Maybe you ought to try presenting a well thought out argument backed by facts rather than half baked contentions that dont stand up to even the most cursory examination?
You can have pol pot along to the party though. Just make sure you give him the right drink...
Look, fine, but you're not making valid comparisons and not sticking to the same parameters of debate when replying to me. If you want me to think again about my points, you'll have to stick to relevant comparisons.
If you're replying to bang to rights, fine. But you weren't.
I haven't got any facts, and haven't presented any.
You, however, appear to say you do have facts, which is amazing. I wonder what kind of facts you have? Are they the true facts, or subjective ones i wonder?
We're in a debating forum, not a bloody courtroom. I suggest if you're looking for evidence and 'facts' then you take a turning away from urban and off to the courthouse. In case you've not picked up on it, i'm actually testing my own hypotheses and seeing if anyone can make me think again. I have a few times now said very clearly that my mind is not made up.
You're in need of a few lessons on critical reading and writing dear boy.
Do you mind clarifying what you meant by this fela? without accusing me of 'moving the goalposts' this time - after all I was only answering your question!
Yes, thats why your arguments are nothing more than badly thought out, half baned rants based on popular prejudices rather than any real analysis of the situation.
Just because you *think* something is true, doesnt make it so.
It's not that long a thread, and i think it's only gotten round to this aspect of debate in the last page or so. My time is running out, so maybe you could run through it again. I've made very clear mate my position here. Which basically is that after years and years of thinking about some very key questions about human life and how we go about either killing each other or getting on with each other, i'm leaning strongly towards one answer, but have yet to convince myself.
Such key tenets of the human condition have always interested me, and to be honest are the main reason for my still visiting urban75. If i knew the answers, why would i be debating them?!
But the problem i'm having with both you and belushi is this constant moving of the goalposts when replying specifically to my posts. I just can't keep up!
the question is really really begged: why do you bother debating with such people?
But equally i have to stress how wrong you are: my 'arguments' are the result of years and years of thinking, and reflect that fact that in my experience just as we think we have come to know or understand something, we realise we know, in fact, fuck all.
Furthermore i have no time whatsoever for popular prejudices or any kind of prejudices thank you. I'd've been out of my job fucking years ago were that the case. I'm simply not interested in beliefs, judmentalness, covert subjectivity, and 'facts'. The only thing i can verify for absolute certain is what has happened to me in my life's experiences.
And what i 'think' automatically makes it true for me, and me only.
god you're stuck in the past. You're making no effort at reasonable debate with me, so go talk to someone else.
You do realise theres no such thing as a 'subjective fact'?
Of course there bloody is. How many times have you been wrong on this one page eh?
Again, just because you *want* me to be wrong, doesnt make me wrong. I know I wont convince you fela (youre one of those types who's ego is so huge and fragile you actually believe you dont have an ego) but I'm certain no one else is convinced by your desparate wriggling.
Similar threads
